another that has no claim to it, without any fhadow of injuftice; yet, punishment can't righteously be inflicted on one that no way deserves it; and eternal punishment cannot be deserved, if no fin is to be charged.

Among the Calviniftical Divines of the laft century, Doctor Twifs was one of prime note; and, tho' in the Supra-lapfarian fcheme, he declares himself in the words following; "That in no moment "of time or reafon doth God ordain "any man to damnation, before the con"fideration of fin. Every one that is dam"ned is damned for his fin, and that will"fully committed, and contumaciously " continued, by them that come to ripe years.

Doctor Edwards, another ftrenuous and learned defender of predeftination, fays, * "It is a true propofition, that God never "decreed to make any creature everlaft"ingly miserable, who by his voluntary

+ In his riches of God's love, wrote against Mr. Hord, 2d part pag. 50.

* In his Veritas Redux, p. 163, 164.

M

66

tranigreffion

"tranfgreffion of the divine laws, did not "deferve it. To damn, being an act of "punitive juftice, fuppofes a fault, implies "fome demerit. Tribulation and anguish to every foul of man that worketh evil, Rom.

2. 9. All are under fin, Rom. 3. 9. That "every mouth may be flopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, v. 19. There"fore the penal decree hath refpect to this.

.C

And our venerable Willard || fpeaks the fame language, when he fays, "God in

"tended to damn none but for fin. Dam"nation is not an act of meer fovereignty, "but of relative juftice. God damns none "meerly because he will damn them, but "because they have bro't it upon themfelves. As in Jer. 2. 17. Haft thou not procured this unto thy felf, in that thou hast forfaken the Lord thy God? Sin therefore is the only caufe of men's deftruction. "It is true, there is an infallibility of confequence upon reprobation, that all who

..

are under that decree will die; but they "do not die because they were reprobated, "but because they finned. And were it not fo, revenging juftice would not be "manifefted in this. For, juftice appears

In his Expofitory Lectures, p. 270.

"in rewarding men according to their "doings, judging by the law which they are under. That juftice then may "take place, it must appear that the

man really deferves the penalty in"flicted on him. Now this defert arifeth " from the nature and merit of fin: the "man then must be a finner before he can "be justly damned; and if he be fo, he "then rightly deferves it. So we read, "Rom. 6. 23. The wages of fin is death;

but the gift of God is eternal life, thro' Jefus "Christ our Lord. So that notwithstanding "the decree, no one falls under this fentence, till by his fin he hath brought it upon himself. No man is doom'd to "hell and deftruction, because he was re"probated, but because he was a finner " and deferv'd it

Having fo far clear'd the doctrine of thefe mifrepresentations that are made of it, We come,

II. To return fome answer to the objections that are commonly offer'd against it. And

I. Some object against the doctrine of election, or God's free choice of fome of fallen mankind, to make them the subjects of his grace now, and heirs of glory hereafter, while he paffed by the reft, and left them in the ruins of their apoftacy;fome M 2

obiec

object against this, as inconfiftent with the justice and righteousness of God. Why, fay they, fhou'd he chufe fome and not others, to make them the objects of his redeeming love and grace, when all were alike miferable, and equally undeferving? Does not this make him a refpecter of perfons? Whenas we are told, Acts 10. 34. Of a truth God is no refpecter of perfons; and he has ftrictly forbidden this in earthly judges.

To this it may be anfwer'd, That respect of perfons which is blam'd amongst men, is when one is prefer'd before another, in a matter of right, for fome finifter and felfifh ends; as when a judge favours the rich in bis caufe: but this is not chargeable where a perfon is under no obligation by any law or rule, but is at perfect liberty. Thus tho' a man that is a judge, muft do alike by all, when he difpenfes juftice; yet a man is at liberty to take into his house and family whom he pleases, or to bestow his eftate on whom he will. If that place in Acts 10. 34, 35. where the apoftle Peter fays, Of a truth I perceive that God is no refpecter of perfons: But in every nation, be that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him, is duly confider'd, it will appear that it does not intend but that God does fhew favour to fome above

others;

others; but all that it means is this, that God refpects no man's perfon, either lefs or more, for his outward condition & carnal priviledges.

Now, it is certain that God's election had no regard to any thing in the creature, to any defervings found in the objects of is; for all lay in one corrup: mafs when the decree was exercis'd about them, and whatever they have excellent above others is the fruit of their election, and so not the cause of it.

The glorious God was at perfect liberty, being a debtor to none. He is fovereign Lord of his own grace, and may certainly bestow it where he will. None could lay claim to it, and therefore none are wrong'd if it is not beftowed on them; tho' all are highly favour'd who are the partakers of it.

Shall it be reckon'd an act of injuftice in God to fave fome of mankind only, when he might have left ALL to perish, as well as the fallen angels, and not recover'd fo much as ONE of our apoftate race? We may venture to refer the matter here to the decifion of impartial reason it felf. What! fhall not God have power to difpofe of his own grace and glory as he pleafeth? When he is a debtor to none,but makes that oper challenge, Who bath first given to him, and it

Shall